|
I've seen the number thrown around that 20-some states are voting on weed in general (whether RMJ, MMJ, or decrim) in 2016, legislatively or by referendum. Kinda surprised this isn't coming up more in the POTUS election yet. A few of the outlying states like WY and SD have shot down MMJ already for this year, but the number of states with zero cannabis "legal" use (albeit in some states just "clinical trials" of CBD) is down to like 10 states and only some of the US territories. And plenty of individual cities have either decriminalized or pulled the "lowest law enforcement priority" deal. Looking to be an interesting year. A lot of this would've sounded implausible even five years ago, much less 10. I'm pretty sure if you go back far enough in just this thread there are posters saying there's no way the Feds will let CO run RMJ stores, that they'll be kicking the doors down in every potshop in Breckenridge. Meanwhile, saw a recent article saying that an estimated 70% of the ganja sold in CO is now through legal channels, so they're slowly choking their black market while WA still struggles with large-scale noncompliance.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:WA still struggles with large-scale noncompliance. Can you be more specific about his? Genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I've seen the number thrown around that 20-some states are voting on weed in general (whether RMJ, MMJ, or decrim) in 2016, legislatively or by referendum. Kinda surprised this isn't coming up more in the POTUS election yet. A few of the outlying states like WY and SD have shot down MMJ already for this year, but the number of states with zero cannabis "legal" use (albeit in some states just "clinical trials" of CBD) is down to like 10 states and only some of the US territories. And plenty of individual cities have either decriminalized or pulled the "lowest law enforcement priority" deal. Right now Marijuana is legalized in very isolated pockets of the country. If California and the rest of them pass the full legalization measures, that will change slightly. Even then though, the legalized states will be predominantly on the West Coast. There's a different set of values in the Northeast which makes the situations incongruous even though they nominally support the same political party. For example, the type of medical marijuana laws passed in California were nowhere to be seen in the Northeast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:Can you be more specific about his? Genuinely curious. Please, Tap, but I'll shed a little light as a resident. The prices at many retail establishments are seemingly outlandish to the seasoned. I personally know people who subscribe to the convenience of having a store you can pop into any time, but for one or two of them, I can cite six others who barely recognize the state's sales as a novelty. The taxes WA put in place are higher than CO's, and when you're smoking as regularly as people drink, you hunt down the cheapest $/gram possible. If TTFA's 70% statistic is reliable, I'll argue that WA is the inverse of CO: 30% sold through legal channels seems close to reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Totally anecdotal, but I feel like a lot of people I know here in CO are definitely leaning more towards dispensaries over their old black market hookups; retail prices are finally starting to come down to realistic levels, and as people's sources dry up they seem to be turning more to dispensaries and not bothering to find new sources. I'm definitely one of those people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
I live in the middle of nowhere in Colorado and the stores here are at street price + tax more or less, and this is 75 miles off the interstate. If you're along the front range it's cheaper now than it was before legalization. It seems like most people switch when their connect doesn't have any that night or they're asleep or whatever so they go to the store once and then never look back. Whatever small price premium you may pay at the store is vastly outweighed by the selection and convenience. Washington is obviously going to have problems with compliance when their taxes are prohibitively high and they are sandwiched right in between British Columbia, Oregon and the Emerald Triangle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Totally anecdotal, but I feel like a lot of people I know here in CO are definitely leaning more towards dispensaries over their old black market hookups; retail prices are finally starting to come down to realistic levels, and as people's sources dry up they seem to be turning more to dispensaries and not bothering to find new sources. As an Oregon resident who never really had a hook up, I've been very pleased with the experience at the dispensary I've been to since legalization began here. The prices might be a bit high, especially for non-medical recreational users, but having set locations, decent selection, upfront pricing, and some level of standards and accountability seems immensely preferable to dealing with random people who may have good stuff or may have poo poo, and who may be sketchy as hell. It's a good thing, really, and no different from going to the liquor store. I hope more states get on board. TapTheForwardAssist posted:I've seen the number thrown around that 20-some states are voting on weed in general (whether RMJ, MMJ, or decrim) in 2016, legislatively or by referendum. Kinda surprised this isn't coming up more in the POTUS election yet. A few of the outlying states like WY and SD have shot down MMJ already for this year, but the number of states with zero cannabis "legal" use (albeit in some states just "clinical trials" of CBD) is down to like 10 states and only some of the US territories. And plenty of individual cities have either decriminalized or pulled the "lowest law enforcement priority" deal. If the customers at the dispensary I've been to are any indication, marijuana definitely seems like something that is used more by regular people than hippie burnouts and counterculture weirdos. If that's the case, then it's not hard to imagine that tolerated and legalized marijuana has probably been getting a groundswell of support (or noninterference, at least), especially as the experiences in CO, OR, and WA show that the sky hasn't fallen down in those states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
What are the odds looking like for Nevada?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Apparently it's a pretty big issue, since you either need to just retire any drug dog who is sensitized to weed, or "retrain" then to some nebulous standard and stand by for huge lawsuits when some guy gets pinged and searched with one joint of weed and recently-fired murder weapon, and alleges that your dog alerted to his legal weed and violated due process. This is fascinating, are there any articles about this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
quote:Santa Ana police officers charged with stealing snacks during marijuana dispensary raid http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-ana-officers-charged-marijuana-raid-20160314-story.html One of them was also charged for vandalism. Guess he thought he was engaged in a good old fashioned drug raid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
"4/20 blaze it" - RBG, probably SCOTUS denies Oklahoma and Nebraska lawsuit against Colorado
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:"4/20 blaze it" - RBG, probably "We'll make Colorado build a WEEEEEEED WWWAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/dea-marijuana-reschedule_us_5704567de4b0537661881644 DEA to decide in the next few months whether to change marijuana's Schedule 1 status. Changing marijuana from Schedule 1 to 2 would allow the DEA to look like it is bowing to popular pressure while not changing much substantively (cocaine is Schedule 2, after all) so I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/dea-marijuana-reschedule_us_5704567de4b0537661881644 It might stop NIDA from stonewalling medical cannabis research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
It shouldn't be schedule II. It should at most be schedule III or IV. Marijuana does not belong on the same schedule as coke, meth, or opiates.Dmitri-9 posted:It might stop NIDA from stonewalling medical cannabis research. The only thing preventing research right now is it's scheduling. Schedule 1 drugs by statutory definition have no medical use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Schedule 1 drugs by statutory definition have no medical use. They put heroin on there, which has been categorically demonstrated to have medical use for over a century, with studies from the 2000s showing clinical benefits over morphine or oxycodone in some situations. But because its on there it would be difficult to replicate those in the US, and thus difficult to get it moved to a schedule II where it belongs. (e: possibly showing, some comments were raised about how the study was performed, but that's how research is supposed to work, not just throwing it in schedule I and ignoring it forever) Same with the psychiatric research into LSD, MDMA, or psilocybin, which requires a ton of paperwork or just gets done in other countries. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is the dumbest thing. The
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
If you want recreational marijuana you should not want it scheduled at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is the dumbest thing. They have no medical use therefore you can't research into whether they have any medical use. Research science gets frozen in time when they get added. Yes. No medical use. That's why the U.S. government holds a patent on the antioxidant properties of cannabinoids. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7&RS=PN/6630507
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
counterpoint: antioxidants are bullshit
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Antioxidants and electrolytes aren't bullshit. It's what plants crave!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
killertunes posted:Yes. No medical use. That's why the U.S. government holds a patent on the antioxidant properties of cannabinoids. There is no logic to it. Marinol, Nabiximols and Epidolex, which are THC, THC + CBD and CBD respectively, are completely acceptable to the DEA and FDA as medicines and schedule 3 drugs but a gram of bud is schedule 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Legal marijuana is doomed in Vermont this year. The state senate passed a full legalization bill, but the Vermont House has pretty much entirely rejected that bill. A crucial house committee at first seemed to reject full legalization but was leaning towards more decriminalization, and then it turned out they weren't even down with more decimalization either and by a vote of 6 to 5 only voted to call for the establishment of a marijuana advisory commission that will study legalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Legal marijuana is doomed in Vermont this year. The state senate passed a full legalization bill, but the Vermont House has pretty much entirely rejected that bill. A crucial house committee at first seemed to reject full legalization but was leaning towards more decriminalization, and then it turned out they weren't even down with more decimalization either and by a vote of 6 to 5 only voted to call for the establishment of a marijuana advisory commission that will study legalization. Did they give any reasons? I can't imagine tough on crime punishments would go over that well in Vermont. e: Does it have to do with the pill problem up there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Did they give any reasons? I can't imagine tough on crime punishments would go over that well in Vermont. That's been one of the weird recurring arguments I've seen in the Vermont reporting: "we have a major problem with people taking a drug that kills them, so it'd be a bad idea to legalize a drug that doesn't kill people." Falls into the category of the whole "sending the wrong message" argument about weed, which gets into a kind of truistic/recursive "even if weed isn't actually bad, it's bad because it's illegal and if we legalize non-bad illegal things it'll call into question the entire concept of illegality".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:"even if weed isn't actually bad, it's bad because it's illegal and if we legalize non-bad illegal things it'll call into question the entire concept of illegality". The handwringing kills me. I think most people agree that it's fine that krokodil and heroin remain illegal, and the rest are shades of grey. Bring it to actual debate, let's collectively figure this poo poo out! But the time is long past to cease criminalizing a medical issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
The fundamental problem basically remains that partaking of cannabis for recreational purposes, as common as it is, remains culturally taboo in the West. It's not what "respectable" people do. Respectable people instead hit up happy-hour after work and consume alcohol to relief their stress. The people who hold power in the USA overwhelmingly took part in the drug war and were ideologically raised under it. The culture itself has to change (i.e become more accepting of individuals responsibly using cannabis as a recreational aid) before the laws start to change nationally. Meanwhile I always cringe when the only arguments presented for marijuana legalization have to do with the substance's medical utility or the bad drug war externalities, and rarely have to do with the glaring fact that the minuscule harm the drug can cause a few addictive-personality types is outweighed by the overwhelming pleasure and happiness it can bring to the masses. You see legalization advocates try to dodge questions like "would use increase under legalization?" It might, to be honest, and it would be good if it did because cannabis is awesome and more people should have legal and affordable access to it.
objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I think most people agree that it's fine that... heroin remain illegal Um what? It's safe enough for children: quote:Conclusions There were no safety concerns raised during the conduct of the study. In addition to expected side effects, IND can cause mild nasal irritation in a proportion of patients. http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/2014/01/21/emermed-2013-203226.full Now that we're on the topic there's a cracker of an article in the latest Journal of Palliative Care: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/jpm.2016.0079 KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
I find the standard of "In a controlled medical environment we had little to no side effects, so we should then allow it to be recreationally used" to be very strange.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I find the standard of "In a controlled medical environment we had little to no side effects, so we should then allow it to be recreationally used" to be very strange. The key point is that a prohibition situation is the polar opposite of a controlled medical environment. The extension of that point is that a decrim environment is between the two and that moving that direction counter-intuitively reduces harm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The key point is that a prohibition situation is the polar opposite of a controlled medical environment. The extension of that point is that a decrim environment is between the two. Not inherently, no. A decrim environment reduces the risk of being imprisoned, but you still have no recourse if (for example) the drugs you bought were cut with something worse. Actually, if anything a prohibition environment is an attempt at a controlled environment - the end goal is to regulate drug usage and behavior, just at a society level rather than a specific medical facility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Not sure if TYT links are kosher here, but here's an interesting one confirm what everyone already knows. "Nixon Invented War On Drugs To Attack Black People And Leftists" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYUFJLSOm8
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Anti-drug crusading as a tool of racial oppression in America goes back a lot farther than Richard Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Further than Anslinger too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I find the standard of "In a controlled medical environment we had little to no side effects, so we should then allow it to be recreationally used" to be very strange. Well you have never worked in a medically supervised injecting centre like me. If people could just walk in, do an orientation and score some pharma grade diamorphine for injection on site everyone would be better off. KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Well you have never worked in a medically supervised injecting centre like me. And that has what relation to a specially formulated nasal spray as in your link?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And that has what relation to a specially formulated nasal spray as in your link? They have the essentially same contents/medicinal value? This is pedantic even for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:They have the essentially same contents/medicinal value? They do not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They do not. Then address that instead of pretending you don't know why someone who used to work in a medically supervised diamorphine injection site would have an opinion on a diamorphine nasal spray. Every now and then I clear my ignore list and you are almost always the first back on it because of dumb poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Then address that instead of pretending you don't know why someone who used to work in a medically supervised diamorphine injection site would have an opinion on a diamorphine nasal spray.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:09
|
|
